DJI Spark Review: Small but mighty

The DJI spark is a diminutive drone that just screams to be put in your bag and taken everywhere you go. It's likely to appeal to all levels of users thanks to its extremely compact size and strong feature set, but this miniaturization does come at a cost. Compared to most larger models it has shorter battery life, lacks a 3-axis gimbal and, notably, does not support 4K video capture. But, did we mention that it's really small?

With an MSRP of $499, the Spark doesn't have a lot of direct competition from models of comparable size and feature sets, though the closest alternative is probably the Yuneec Breeze 4K. If size isn't a critical factor there are models with more impressive specs, such as DJI's own Phantom 3 Standard and Phantom 3 SE, in the same price range.

The Spark is also available in a 'Fly More' combo that adds a remote controller, charging hub, spare props, propeller guards, and extra battery for $699.

Key Features

12MP 1/2.3" CMOS sensor

2-axis mechanical gimbal

1080/30p video

Vision system for accurate positioning

Gesture control

16-minute flight time

Compact size

Before we get into the nitty-gritty, let's qualify this review (and really, any drone review). A drone is not a flying camera. Rather, a drone is an aircraft with a camera attached to it. Therefore, the true value of a drone is a balance between the aircraft and camera.

Since we're looking at two distinct pieces of hardware merged together, let's look at each one individually, beginning with the aircraft. We've included the Yuneec Breeze and DJI Phantom 3 SE for comparison.

DJI Spark

Yuneec Breeze 4K

DJI Phantom 3 SE

Take-off weight

300g

385g

1236g

Dimensions

143x143x55mm

196x196x65mm

247x247x193mm

Maximum flight time

16 minutes

12 minutes

25 minutes

Maximum speed

50km/h (31mph) [with controller]

18km/h (11mph)

58km/h (36mph)

Obstacle avoidance

Yes

Yes

No

Maximum operating range

100m [2km with controller]

100m

4km

Controller

Optional

Optional

Yes

Price

$499

$399

$599

The thing that's obvious right away is how much smaller the Spark and Breeze are compared to a full-sized Phantom, though the Phantom will stay in the air quite a bit longer. The Spark has some notable advantages over the Breeze, including a much higher maximum speed (when used with the optional controller) and a mechanical gimbal. Both have a limited operating range of 100m, but if you pair the Spark with the optional controller the range extends significantly. Chances are good you'll want the controller.

Now let's take a look at the camera and gimbal.

DJI Spark

Yuneec Breeze

DJI Phantom 3 SE

Sensor size

1/2.3" CMOS

1/3.06" CMOS

1/2.3" CMOS

Resolution

12MP

13MP

12MP

Lens (equiv.)

25mm F2.6

Not specified

20mm F2.8

Lens FOV

81.9º

117º

94º

Max photo resolution

3968x2976

4160x3120

4000x3000

Image formats

Jpeg

Jpeg

Jpeg, Raw

Max video resolution

1080/30p

UHD 4K/30p

DCI 4K/24p/25p

UHD 4K/30p

Bit rate

24 Mbps (H.264)

Not specified

60 Mbps (H.264)

Gimbal type

2-axis mechanical

None

3-axis mechanical

The cameras in all three models are similar in size to the ones found in many smartphones. They're not going to be low light champs, but they're still capable of producing good photos and video. What really jumps out here is the Spark's lack of a 4K video option. Of course, HD is usually fine for web streaming, which we suspect will be a pretty common use case for this model.

What's all this mean? The Spark is an extremely small, lightweight drone that seems perfect for throwing into a backpack, tossing into carry-on luggage, or just having with you all the time.

This is only $350 now bare bone, so I might get it, still debating. What is holding me back is the 1080, which mean I might upgrade in the near future. Mavic is $900ish bare bone. This is a good price but like entry level camera baby nikon or rebel, you end up upgrading sooner rather then later. It is so small I see it get slapped in the wind in some conditions.

I taught myself to pilot quads using cheap, toy drones (no GPS, no compass), before shelling out on my first "real" drone. I was torn between Mavic and Spark, and finally went for the latter because of its tiny size. The fly-more bundle, plus an extra (third) battery duly arrived, and after charging everything up, downloading apps, doing software updates, registering the drone with DJI, ... got this baby into the air.

Needless to say, compared to a toy drone, the Spark is a complete doddle to fly. The moment you panic, just let go of the controls, and it stops and hovers in place while you figure out what you are trying to do (toy drones tend to crash when you do this).

Image quality is better than I expected from that tiny camera, and video is oily-smooth despite it only being a 2-axis gimble. And with three batteries, you can get about 45 minutes of flight time, before recharging all three in parallel with the included charging dock.

Thank you (all) for your comments. I think it's important to recognize that the Spark was intended as a direct competitor to the Yuneec Breeze and other "selfie" drones. In that respect, it is definitely the top of this market. However, for this price point, there may be better options available for photography. It really depends on the points of design that you value.

The drones do function better in cold (heavier) air, and the motors stay much cooler, which improves their efficiency. However, the batteries may have issues with cold weather, and should be kept warm (in a jacket pocket, etc.)

For the money you can't fault the spark, the still IQ is comparable to the mavic (same size (as it folds) but heavier). The main advantage of the spark is the small size allows for guerrilla style shooting e.g. you can get away with using it where a bigger device would be scorned (I do not condone illigal flying as that's ruining the hobby). The main disadvantage is the crippled transmission strength when not in FCC mode ~500m the mavic will do at least 1Km in a non FCC mode. The video quality is decent but < mavic essentially if you want stills get the spark or P4P if you want video and stills get the mavic or P4

Apparently it's too late to edit my comment (why?), so I'll just post the rationale in a separate comment.

The advantages of the larger sensor would be 1 extra stop of DR, and close to 3 extra stops better ISO performance. This would make an F/4.0 lens the equivalent of F/2.0 (in terms of low light performance). This is based on comparison between the test results of the best current 1/2.3" camera and the the best 1" camera.

As for weight, it should be very similar. Just look at other compact cameras with 1" sensors. Some of them are absolutely tiny, and with faster lenses.

I think there's no need to explain why RAW is a must for anyone serious about photography.

Bought this drone months ago because I was new to flying. The price would not make me cry in case I crash it into some wall by accident :) However, I am way past that now. I have been flying it over the sea and over the cliff. It is a delight to use, for as long as you are mindful of its limitations. I agree with the review where they said it is very easy to fly. Good value for money. Video allows me some latitude for edit especially when light is good (I estimate that video quality is very good up to around ISO800).

Sorry, but how can you call the concluding list of cons ‘cons’ when they’re simply features it doesn’t have! lack of 4K might deliver lower resolution than the Mavic, but that’s why the Mavic exists. The Spark was designed without 4K, so how can not having it be a con ... likewise for most others on the list. If you’re going to adopt that attitude, why not start with ‘unable to fly for 4 hour’ and Finish with ‘too small to be carried in both hands’ and ‘you don’t get guards or a lifetime supply of beer with it’.

Hi Chad, I agree with you. There is no drone of this size, with 15 minute flight time, 2km range, with gimbal and 12 mp camera and 4K (quality) video. So, not having 4K is not a cons until one such drone becomes available with matching specs. We all know that image quality is more important than the pixel count. A good quality FHD image can be enlarged to 4K, yet look better than some 4K (claiming) cameras. BTW my 50" TV at home is still FHD. I acknowledge that it is a "cons" :)

I can't understand why the Drone manufacturers, instead of including their own camera, which too often has a very small sensor, don't just make a drone that has the ability to carry any small, compact point & shoot or action cam in a cargo bay. That way we can use our own cameras and get much better quality photos and they can reduce the costs and complexity of the drone.

By carrying its own camera, the specs (mass, size, performance) are well known and reduce the development cost. While I think it would be nicer for drones to carry any camera, it would drastically increase testing costs and the engineering to accommodate a range of cameras. The final cost and complexity might be more than if they can simply include a camera where they have complete knowledge of its specs and needs and do not have to safely accommodate anything else. It might also make it difficult to achieve the "throw it in a bag" size of this drone if a robust external mounting platform is part of it.

It's pretty much down to weight. Even a camera with the same sensor size, due to having the electronics housed along with the sensor, need a larger heavier gimbal to stabilise them. An adjustable gimbal to enable different cameras will add further complexity and weight. This in turn has a knock-on effect to overall weight and flight time.

Higher end drones can carry any camera you like (when you start getting up int the Matrice range with DJI for example). Just count on a large drone, a truck or trailer to carry all of the gear in, and spending at least $12,000 for one that is worth a darn. If you're talking GoPro range, just about every drone carried that about 4 years ago. But the GoPro is not very aerodynamic, and caused burnouts on gimbal motors. Plus, the lens distortion of a GoPro is pretty much intolerable.

IMHO, this 25/50 PAL nonsense has to go away. There is no advantage with modern flat screens (used to be different with CRT). And content now is globally shared via social nets, at 24/30/60. Better to bring all your cameras to 30/60 and never look back. I live in a PAL country and never shot 25/50; which is a bit difficult with Sony ...

As a side note, some editors import Spark footage at 29.98 (e.g. FCPX). It then plays with stutter (in Youtube etc.). Import it manually (or alter the meta data) into a 29.97 timeline which is the standard anyway.

The reason for the division of the world's regions in (Ex-)PAL and (Ex-)NTSC was the grid: It's either 50 Hz (Europe, for example) or 60 Hz (USA and Japan, for example). And as long as this does not change, the option to have both 25p/50p and 30p/60p makes sense - keyword "flickering lights" in videos (yes, you can help yourself by switching to a different shutter, but not all cameras allow this for video).

I still use my Panasonic GH2 and it only offers the 720/50p and 1080/50i options. Except for Motion JPEG, which is restricted to 720/30p.

It is still not a good idea, to mix the 25p/50p footage with 30p/60p in an editing timeline because choppy playback of either one in the final render might be the result.

Question: If this distinction is completely unnecessary and out of date, why then do all the professional video cameras and photo 'world cams' with video give a choice between the two ?

@NameFinder the distinction (because of grid frequencies) made sense at a time where screen refresh rates were a multiple of it (i.e. CRTs). Flat screens however refresh at whatever rate, often 60 or 120 Hz (iPad) anyway and flat screens don‘t actually flicker (in a proper sense). A 25 fps video in the US, or a 30 fps video in the EU, won‘t flicker. It‘s a thing of the past.

Old fashioned camera companies, unfortunately, are afraid of confusing their customers and continue to offer the usual. With the Sony RX100 for instance, I get a PAL warning at every boot after I switched it to 30/60. And that the GH2 doesn‘t even allow 30 is a real reason to complain. Even though Youtube accepts 25/50 timelines, many even in Europe now prefer to upload in 24/30/60.

Some new fashioned camera manufacturers just ignore this legacy. Almost nobody actually complains anymore. Everybody who can should work with 30/60 timelines.

It's not just about screen refresh rates, it's about what you recorded on your camera's SD card. If it flickers there or is moving in bright stripes accross the image, screen refresh rates won't be of much help.

However, it is true that if one produces videos mainly for YouTube (located in a 60Hz-country) then 30/60 (whenever the light's frequency and/or camera will allow it) is probably the better choice than 25/50.

What you discuss is the effect of flickering artificial light sources. The method by red won‘t work with a rolling shutter. It still gives stripes, just that they don’t move ;) Rather, make the shutter slow enough to prevent stripes altogether (i.e., multiple of 1/100s in PAL land). Some cameras allow for, e.g., 1/50s even at 30 fps. Its a question of shutter speed, not frame rate.

My review of the Spark :)First image quality, it can do quite well for a sensor this small:https://www.flickr.com/photos/medicineman4040/36876251794/in/album-72157686941113394/Second, hardiness. Watch this vid and witness the crash....crash totally my fault (flying over water, 1 mile hike down into this gorge meant few satellites, poor calibration of compass prior to flying)....the Spark has worked flawlessly ever since.https://vimeo.com/238731272You know the old adage, it's the camera you have with you. In this case it's the drone you don't mind hiking/backpacking with :)Just know it's a drone and sooner or later you will fly near something large and metallic, or get serious radio interferance from something and fly-away it will...just the nature of drones. Be smart where you fly and get insurance on it!

I was seriously thinking of buying one of these, until they recently brought in some very stiff rules here in Thailand ; ALL drones must be registered with the Thai National Broadcasting Commission, and if over 2 kgs or fitted with a camera also registered with Civil Aviation WITH insurance ! Failure to do the first could get you a 100,000Baht fine, and another 40,000 for no insurance/CAAT registration.So if anybody is thinking of bringing one out here for a holiday perhaps they should think again ?Richard Barrow (http://www.richardbarrow.com/2017/10/how-to-register-your-drone-in-thailand/) has probably the best English language info about drone flying in Thailand.

This isn't anywhere close to 2 kg, and I think everyone should register with their local authorities anyway. I see nothing wrong with those requirements. 2 kg falling from say 50 m = one badly injured person or car or roof.

In my opinion, a much better starting point for the "wonderful world of drones" is : go out, buy the parts and build a drone by yourself. Get the APM/Ardupilot Controller, get a GPS device, buy some frames, maybe from Tarot get a radio system and put it all together. That is the real thing for a real man (and, of course, woman), not threwing money out of the window for another plaything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHXHB2SSM48 (quality of this 4 year old video is much better than shown, this was only a technical demonstration for me).

Ok, if you only want good photos, then this drone would also be a good starting point, very nice.

I'm an engineer, and unless you truly enjoy tinkering, this is stupid advice for anyone that simply wants to have fun flying drones and taking aerial photographs.

Some people have more money than free time, and the open source software isn't calibrated for a given chassis, it's a one size fits all solution; it will always be inferior to a comprehensive solution from DJI.

Although I agree with the OP on this thread, I certainly understand that some people would rather just buy and fly. I have found though that people who have experience building and tuning their own drones have far more respect for how dangerous and volatile they are, and are therefore better pilots.

@Coliban,This is like telling people that real men (or women) don't buy meat from the stores, they raise their own cattle and build their own slaughterhouse!Of course one can use the same analogy for all other food products.

It maybe a good idea for a tinkerer, a hobbyist, or an electrical engineer, but it is not something for the masses.

People who buy these drones are still "real men" and "real women".

Perhaps without ill intentions, you insulted lots of "real" men and women!!You owe them an apology.

I have the Mavic and the Spark ... you wont go wrong with either and I wouldn’t worry too much about the gimbal unless you’re sweeping, at speed, in and out of hills, mountains and valleys! You’ll love whichever you buy, so buy according to wallet. You’ll also benefit from fantastic resale value should you change your mind!

The odd line and context break gave it away for me, I just highlighted over the area to read but it was still tough to make out (tho I do have my brightness set very very low right now to conserve battery, damn you Maria).

@LanValid point. The Spark ships with a number sweet photographic tricks, like fake bokeh (drone moves to create parallax), wide angle, 180 pano, 360 VR, hdr, burst, ... Could have been looked at indeed. Incl. some critique as too narrow bracketing, or no bracketing in pano mode. Still the pano modes combined with an external stitcher can yield professional results. So far, two photographers bought a Spark after seeing some of my panos.

IMHO, a DPR review does normally also give feedback to the vendor, about what to improve on. Not this time, unfortunately.

2DPR staff: I think your in-depth review miss the connectivity part. There are only few words about it and no detailed demonstration. Also there are no panoramic examples in the article too. The Spark is very convenient when you instantly download the result to your smartphone while flying or right after landing wirelessly. The DJI Go 4 can stitch panos and the 1080p video downloads fast right after the flight over Wi-Fi at speeds close to 2.5 Mbytes per second, but there isn’t a word about it in the review.

Spark is amazing. I own P4, Mavic and two Spark drones (second as a spare) and I found myself mostly taking the Spark with me and leaving other drones at home because it perfectly fit in my pocket or into my tiny camera bag full of lenses with 4 batteries and the remote. Launch delay is amazingly smaller then on Mavic because you don’t need to unfold the drone and simply connect the smartphone via Wi-Fi without the need to use a cable, so I can be in the air in few moments after getting the Spark out of my pocket.

I was carefully testing the range: climbing 500m high and flying 2100m away is possible in a field while in FCC mode on Spark controlled with the remote.

The 4K would result battery drain and overheat, but I really miss RAW support. Anyway I can get maximum from JPEG when using the bracketing and doing some post, and I’m completely in love with panos Spark can shoot. Using Kolor APG it’s possible to get 40-50MP landscape shots from this toy, and I can do bracketing too.

To test each camera, why not set each drone on a table and take a test shot?Ideally the subject/scene would be over 30 ft away - at "infinity" since that's the normal usage of a drone, so a test chart wouldn't be feasible to fill the whole frame.

Wow, how miserable are you! The drone has a LOT going for it ; it’s a great starting point of entry for the wonderful world of drone flying and areial video and photography. It’s fun and challenging to fly, it takes skill and practice to deliver good results; which when achieved give a great sense of fulfilment. Then there’s fpv goggles .... the list goes on!

Might I suggest you stick to crouching in bushes taking pictures of swallows and blue tits and leave the fun stuff to those that can handle it.

In my view the 'Spark' ist just a toy for casual applications. I am thinking about the 'Mavic' a lot for more serious image quality. I like the size of the 'Spark' though and I am not miserable just because I am making a point You are unable to comprehend.

I can comprehend you comments quite easily ... you’re saying this advanced bit of electronics, that in the right creative hands, can produce some great alternative photography, video and a whole lot of fun. The fact you only see it as a selfie taking giggle machine says it all!

In *heavy* *rain* where all photographers remained in shelter and nobody else flew his drone, I flew the Spark for 6 minutes w/o issues before I bailed out ;) (Also, the rain was very visible in the footage) Although no official feature, the Spark can withstand rain to a point. It helps it has a single closed top cover. I now fly it w/o hesitation in non-optimum wheather to max flight time (mild rain, snow, wind). I wouldn't do with a Mavic, Phantom or Inspire ...

I'd say a non-weather sealed smartphone, or the controller, fails long before the Spark in rain.

We wrestled with that a bit. If this was a review of a Mavic, Phantom, or a similar competitor (Autel X-Star Premium, for example) we would have been much more critical about lack of Raw image capture. It's disappointing to serious photographers, but Raw is probably not a mission critical feature for the Spark's intended audience.

This is our first full drone review, and we have many more planned, so we welcome any feedback.

> Raw is probably not a mission critical feature for the Spark's intended audience.

That's exactly why critique is so important. You (and DJI) assume photographers aren't the intended audience. Yet you praise it high which is illogical, for a photographer. The market decides what the audience turns out to be.

If your conclusion would have been that the Spark is a selfie drone only and no useful tool for a photographer, your rating would have had to be negative. It isn't, so please criticize the absence of RAW in the most visible way. Thanks!

Last point: As far as still photography is concerned, this IS a review of a Mavic. Because both feature the almost same camera.

The target audience for Spark are users who do not care about RAW support and simply post the shots and videos to Instagram and other social media right after the flight, using Wi-Fi to download the result instantly. I would like to see RAW in Spark too, but even modern DSLRs and mirrorless do not support RAW transfer over wireless. For a typical smartphone user working with RAW is to complicated and I do understand DJI. If you need RAW and can handle grading/development there is the Mavic ;)

Plus they want people to spend $800-$1100 on the Mavic. Both have 1/2.3" sensors, but the lack of raw differentiates them...If Spark supports bracketing, JPEG should be good enough to get a good exposure, plus if the person is "advanced", they could create HDR from the bracketed images (and does it support HDR in camera?).

A fantastic drone in a compact size. It helps open up the doors to so many photographic and video possibilities. It help me made history in my search for the Fabled White Crocodile of my hometown of Batu Pahat. A dream come true for my family's quest to see it from the air. A short video of the sightings here at You Tube : https://youtu.be/f1Lw2Omc0_s ... Thanks again to The Spark .

Hi KKX ... First off, Thanks for the heads up. Nope you can't add a filter to the covered lens ( For Protection against the elements ). I did however took clips from the video and Auto adjust them in Photoscape. Pics are a lot sharper and colors as natural at it is in my Blog post here : http://jamesmoh.blogspot.my/2017/10/the-fabled-white-crocodile-of-batu.html ... Thanks again Mate and have a nice weekend ahead !!

I crashed Spark into a tree while experimenting with gesture control and the only damage were two props. I replaced them right after crash and continued to fly. A foldable drone like Mavic would not survive that :-)

I have compared, I own both, and I’m perfectly happy with the RAW limitations of the Spark in order to utilise it’s advantages. No RAW no drone is little throwing your toys out of your pram ... but your loss.

I'm seriously dubious about the "fun to fly" claim in the tweet. This entire category seems specifically designed to be as un-fun to fly as possible. Certainly none of them I've ever flown are remotely fun to fly.

I've flown about a dozen different quads, including a couple custom-made ones. They're boring because they are slow and self-stabilizing. It's like flying a bridge crane. Go here, go there, that's it. And do it really slowly.

At least RC helicopters are challenging, fast and capable. But RC planes are what are fun for me. Nothing like chasing thermals, flying pylon racers at over 150mph, flying full aerobatics, shooting touch and goes on a lake with a high performance float plane, and getting something unusual to fly really well with lots of hard work.

Flying a self stabilized 20mph quad that can't do anything is just boring.

The Mavic Pro is also good competition to the Spark despite the price. The Mavic folds when unused, making it as small as the Spark. Both can't do 1080p@60fps as the Mavic, in this mode, is unusable.

In the end, I will prefer the Spark as I don't use my Mavic all the time which is just cash burn to me. The Mavic can't launch from the hand and landing it to one's hand is tricky, and riskier than the Spark.

I recently saw someone trying to catch one of these smaller drones by hand after flying it off a peak that was both in a U.S. National Park and designated Wilderness, two illegal acts. He ended up slashing three fingers and dropping the drone... I felt sorry for him, but he also got what he deserved.

Good chadley - what's the regular price in GBP for that combo? I saw that Samsclub (an arm of Walmart) will have the combo for $599 down from $699, but I'm holding out. And I don't like Walmart, so there's that too.

The Spark is simpler to setup & fly - plus the batteries can be charged in situ via USB (it will even charge @ 12v if you have a QC2.0 or QC3.0 USB charger). Flight time is shorter & quality is not as good (as the Mavic), but it's fun to fly & less imposing. They both have their uses, but if you can only have 1 then decide between convenience & simplicity vs quality & flight time

Another thing to consider is the mavic platinum which is quieter and has a longer flight time. I recently bought the low noise propellers for the mavic pro but I have yet to test them (you basically aren't allowed to fly a drone in NYC so I need to wait til I'm out of town).

Be careful of the Spark. I got one because I wasn't sure how I'd take to droning, but it looked to be a good way to get the best one can in an affordable kit. Well, soon after I wanted a bit more still image quality. It's gotten me into video in a way I hadn't up until now. I'm waiting now on a Mavic Pro Platinum delivery (but already have the Mavic rig for non-flight stabilized video). I should have just jumped on a Mavic at the get-go.

@zsedcftThe Mavic is a better tool overall, I agree. But it can't replace a Spark for two use cases:1. Low profile missions where flying a Mavic or bigger gets people upset. For whatever reason, people seeing the Spark can't hate it ...2. Long hikes with weight limitations (craft and batteries).Biggest limitation is absense of RAW. Flight time, 1080p and gimbal are good enough for most use cases. Reach in EU is limiting, but can be "worked around".

Lambert: [chuckle] I had 'gateway drone' in a previous edit, GMTA [g]Falconeyes: While I should have purchased the Mavic instead, I don't regret at all having the Spark as well, for the reasons you raised.

I have the Spark and the Mavic. I use the Spark in close proximity to other people as it’s seen as more of a toy hence less worry someone will raise issues with flying a Mavic. I use the Mavic when I need fast, high and long distance shooting. Like cameras, both have their best uses. Although the Mavic is small, the Spark is significantly smaller and lighter and quicker to get up in the air and down again. Horses for courses!

Sts2 .... unfortunately not! It’s because of this you’re really forced to buy the fly more bundle bringing the total cost up to £700. It’s because of this I cancelled my original order and payed more (well, double) for the Mavic. Didn’t regret it one bit, but there were a number of occasions where I felt the spark would perhaps have fitted in better; mainly in built up areas or locations where there were lots of people or I needed a quieter drone to avoid gazers. So, when I recently saw the Spark fly more pack at £499 ... I couldn’t say no; and like a photographer with a collection of different cameras and lenses, I now have a collection of drones which likewise I can use in differing circumstances. To be honest I think I’m going to get more out of the spark than the Mavic, as most of the droning I do is in public and built up areas. I won’t however sell the Mavic because there will be times when I’m treking in the hills that I want a drone capable of flying fast and for longer

Thanks, clear! I understand that reasoning and it something I might consider as well. I really like the Mavic but indeed it does attract a lot of attention, a Spark might be considered to be more of a toy.I wonder though... if a photographer is going for the two drone approach (which I totally get), wouldn't the better choice be a Spark + a Phantom 4 Pro, now that they've upgraded the camera? I wonder if at some point I might regret going for a Mavic myself :p

Annoys me when people call the Spark a toy. It might be small and marketed (stupidly) at the selfie brigade, but it’s far from a toy ... an expensive one at that! I wouldn’t look at getting a Phantom 4 Pro as it’s just so big! I carry the mavic VERY easy on my walks in Derbyshire ... and it’s a breeze to launch and stow away. The Phantom would be a complete chore ... I guess like carrying a Sony RX10 compared to a full DSLR kit. Yes you compromise on image quality, but you still get fantastic quality; and for me the fun is more in getting the best shot, plus I enjoy editing in photoshop after. Unless you’re a very serious pro, I honestly think you’d regret buying a phantom over a mavic ... it’s not something I would buy, even though I’d love a 1” sensor.

Latest in-depth reviews

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.